Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.24 seconds)Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, Raigad on 17 August, 2015
Seen from this perspective the refund is otherwise
well within the reasonable period. Accordingly, I hold that refund
of Rs. 12,00,290/- with interest of Rs.35,342 has wrongly been
rejected. Department is held liable to refund the said amount also
alongwith the interest. Relying upon the decision of this Tribunal in
the case of Parle Agro Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Dugger Fibers Pvt
Ltd. (supra) the Department is directed to grant interest on the
7
ST/51323 /2023
said amount at the rate of 12% from the date of deposit till the
date of payment.
Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... vs K. Mohan & Company (Exports) Pvt. Ltd on 17 November, 2016
5. While rebutting these submissions, ld. D.R. has mentioned
that the amount, the refund whereof has been rejected, was
deposited by the appellant in the year 2015 whereas the refund
application for the said amount was filed in January, 2021 i.e. after
a period of more than 5 years had elapsed. The only section in the
Central Excise Act for the refund of amount is section 11B of the
act. One year limitation is prescribed under the said provision to
reckon from the date of deposit. As per general law of limitation
also the period of limitation for seeking refund cannot be more than
3 years from date of the deposit. Ld. D.R. has relied upon the
decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner
of Central Excise vs. Evershine Marbles & Exporters Pvt. Ltd.
[2009 (240) ELT 239 (Tri.-Delhi), M/s. Veer Overseas Ltd.
Vs.CCE, Panchkula [2018 (4) TMI 910-CESTAT Chandigarh
LB & Miles India Limited. Appeal is accordingly, prayed to be
dismissed.
Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996
7. I observe that the ground of rejecting this amount is that the
same cannot be an amount covered under section 35F of Central
Excise Act. Hence, section 11 B of the Act shall be applicable for
refund of this amount. This section provides a period of limitation
and the refund claim is beyond the said period of limitation. I
further observe that the refund claim was filed for total amount of
Rs.3039528/- (Rs.18,39,238/- the pre-deposit with respect to the
appeal against OIO dated 21.08.2019 and Rs.1,62,938/- as pre-
deposit for the appeal against OIO dated 05.01.2018) and
Rs.12,00,290/- alongwith interest of Rs.35,342/- was the partial
discharge of alleged duty. The amount of pre-deposit being an
amount under section 35 F that the refund thereof under section 35
FF has been ordered by the adjudicating authorities below.
However, the amount of Rs.12,00,290/- with interest is not an
amount of pre-deposit. But in the light of discussion above, it was
the amount of Revenue deposit paid under protest. No doubt,
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mafatlal Industries (supra)
has held that no claim of refund of any duty shall be entertained
6
ST/51323 /2023
except in accordance with the provisions of the statute and every
claim of excise duty can be made only under and in accordance
with section 11 B in the forms provided by the Act. But present is
observed to not to be the case of refund of the duty. The
Department cannot retain the same and the amount has to be
refunded alongwith the interest to the assessee.
Section 35 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
M/S Continental Engines Ltd vs Cce, Delhi I on 12 September, 2016
), Continental Engines P. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner
reported as 2022 (382) ELT 522 (Tri.-Del.)
1